Yesterday, the Congressman introduced in the House H.R. 213. "A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate the per-country numerical limitation for employment-based immigrants, to increase the per-country numerical limitation for family-sponsored immigrants, and for other purposes" which was forwarded to the Committee on the Judiciary. The bill was and is cosponsored by Demoratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California. It is also co-sponsored by Republican Rep. Labrador of Idaho. Rep. Lofgren previously agreed to co-sponsor the previous controversial bill of H.R. 3012 on compromise to provide increase of per country numerical limitation for family-based immigration system, which is a Democratic legislative platform. Readers may recall that this bill was successful to pass the House and reached the Senate where Irish immigration bill was added and Sen. Grassley opposed to the passage. After a struggle, the Senate had almost compromised with Sen. Grassley, but eventually never made into a legislation. Now the same bill is back, probably without the Irish E-3 visa proposal and as a 114th Congress' new bill of H.R. 213. The text has yet to be made available. As soon as it is available, we will post it at this site.

We don't think that it matters what some immigration lawyer's website say. Different lawyer different opinions. Also, there is a difference between lawyer and lawmaker.

This opinion is only what is already available online, there is nothing new. But we disagree with this assertion that Ms. Lofgren is co-sponsoring the bill because it increases family based country limits to 15%. Congresswoman Lofgren championed removal of per country limits in EB category going back to 2008 when she sponsored a bill H.R.5921 in 2008.

We were involved in this bill for removing per-country limits back in 2008 as well. Congresswoman Lofgren was sponsor of this bill H.R.5921 and it did not increase family based per-country quota to 15%. So it is not true that Congresswoman Lofgren only supports H.R.213 because it increases family based quota from 7% to 15%.

Nevertheless, we support increasing family based per-country quota to 15% because that will reduce the wait times for family based immigrants. However, we disagree that Ms. Lofgren is co-sponsoring this bill only because it increases family based quota. And anyone who says that needs to know better. Congresswoman Lofgren is a big champion of elimination of per country limits in EB category.

Regarding adding Irish E-3 visa bill to H.R.3012 - back in 2012 Sen. Grassley had a hold on our bill. At that time, in Feb/March-2012, a very expensive political consultant suggested that if somehow E-3 Irish visa bill was added to H.R.3012, then Senator for the State of Massachusetts, Sen. Scott Brown could help remove the hold on H.R.3012.

There are a lot of US voters who identify themselves with Irish heritage in the state of MA and NY. The thinking was that if Sen. Brown is able to get E-3 visas for Irish, then he might have a chance to win his senatorial election in Nov-2012. So Sen. Brown (MA) and Sen. Schumer (NY) together added E-3 Irish visa bill to H.R.3012. We were in all those discussions including meetings with Deputy Ambassador of Irish Embassy in Washington. Then Sen. Brown asked Senator Grassley to remove his hold as passage of E-3 Irish visas (in H.R.3012) might help his re-election. Sen. Grassley did not relent but if he did then it would have been a masterful stroke. But as an outcome of all that, somehow at that time E-3 Irish visa bill was added to H.R.3012.

Most people are unaware of this but the deal was that if E-3 Irish visas bill was unable to help remove Sen. Grassley's hold and if someone else puts hold on if E-3 Irish visas bill, then to prevent any overload, E-3 visas part will be stripped from the final H.R.3012 bill before passing it.

Later, in July-2012, Sen. Grassley added his amendment to check for fraud in H-1B system. IV believes that there is a lot of fraud in H-1B system and our members tell us that a lot of immigration lawyers are somehow part of that evil nexus of employer-immigration lawyer causing fraud and exploitation of immigrant employee. Which is why we fully agreed, and we continue to agree with Senator Grassley's amendment.

Senator Grassley decided to remove his hold in July-2012 after he added his amendment. So it is factually not true that Sen. Grassley's text was not added to the Senate version of the bill. It was. And we liked Sen. Grassley's amendment even when bunch of lawyers did not like it. Some employers (which we think are mostly unethical and unscrupulous) were against Sen. Grassley's amendment. And some lawyers (who usually tend to get business from these employers) were also against Sen. Grassley's amendment. But their influence could not stop the bill. In the end, Sen. Sessions had put a hold on H.R.3012, not because of E-3 Irish visas or Grassley Amendment or but for a totally different reason. Back in 2nd half of 2012, Sen. Sessions was not opposed to the concept of elimination of per-country limits but he was making a principled stand on a subject not related to elimination of per-country limits. And rest is history. This is only 50,000 feet view of what transpired behind the scene and if we have to detail out everything, it will be 1000 page epic.

The point is, some lawyers may post information what is already available online. We don't know their motivation. But we were in the middle of all the activity related to bill H.R.3012 in the last round, and we expect to be play a role this time. And what comes out in news is often totally different from what is actually happening behind the scene.

You are free to read whatever you like online. But try to filter out someone's opinion over facts. And the fact is this -

Although immigration lawyers post on their websites as if they know what is going on, Congressional offices in Senate and House of Representatives don't know these big name immigration lawyers who have websites. These big name immigration lawyers that most immigrants revere online, no one knows them and no one gives a jack shit about them in Congressional offices and policy making.

And more importantly, the fact is - EVERY Congressional office knows Immigration Voice. Not because we are better than anyone else, but because we are honest in presenting policy suggestions that are good for America.

There is a power in getting involved and speaking up when you see something wrong. That is the most American thing to do. That is why, even at the cost of repetition we ask everyone over and over again to meet with your Member of Congress in your city or participate in Advocacy event in Washington to share your story/experience with the backlogs. Because your experience and desire to share you human story is thousands of times more powerful than what some immigration lawyer thinks. And that is a fact.

Stop reading online opinions of different immigration lawyers because that doesn't add any value to the debate, rather get involved and speak up and setup meeting with the office of Member of Congress. Online petitions and online voting or petition on Change.org, none of that add any value at all. You can, everyone can make a real difference in the debate by participating in the real world (rather than reading some opinion in the virtual world). The only thing that is preventing you from participating in the real action is your own will to do meaningful action to change your life and the lives of your family members.

My hope is that you will reconsider how you spend your time and actively participate in real advocacy to make the change.

This is very helpful explanation. I did not understand it full because of the Senators asking for different things. But I get the point.

Then why did you not bring back hr3012 bill in 2013 or 2014?

In 2013 and 2014, Congress was considering CIR bill and there was no room to do piecemeal bills. So there was no room to push for individual bills where large CIR was being debated and discussed. And elimination of per-country limits for EB category was part of CIR which passed the Senate. Our fix was also part of the bills that passed the House last year.

You have to understand that even when there is sufficient support for our fixes, it has to wait for the right climate and timing. I know immigrants waiting in backlogs don't want to hear this because for our community what could be more pressing than fixing green card backlogs. However, Congress is dealing with other pressing issues as well. And the only way to increase the priority of our fixes is when more and more people waiting in backlogs will do their share to meet with their member of congress.

This year, Congress plans to tackle issues in piecemeal manner. Which is why it makes sense to support and ask your member of Congress to pass H.R.213.